Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After Starr v. SONY BMG Music Entertainment was dismissed at the District Court level,
the antitrust class action against the RIAA has been reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In its 25-page opinion (PDF), the Appeals court held the following allegations sufficiently allege antitrust violations: 'First, defendants agreed to launch MusicNet and pressplay, both of which charged unreasonably high prices and contained similar DRMs. Second, none of the defendants dramatically reduced their prices for Internet Music (as compared to CDs), despite the fact that all defendants experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing Internet Music. Third, when defendants began to sell Internet Music through entities they did not own or control, they maintained the same unreasonably high prices and DRMs as MusicNet itself. Fourth, defendants used MFNs [most favored nation clauses] in their licenses that had the effect of guaranteeing that the licensor who signed the MFN received terms no less favorable than terms offered to other licensors. For example, both EMI and UMG used MFN clauses in their licensing agreements with MusicNet. Fifth, defendants used the MFNs to enforce a wholesale price floor of about 70 cents per song. Sixth, all defendants refuse to do business with eMusic, the #2 Internet Music retailer. Seventh, in or about May 2005, all defendants raised wholesale prices from about $0.65 per song to $0.70 per song. This price increase was enforced by MFNs.'"

Who is going to compensate me for my increased stress level from living in fear of being sued by the RIAA? If I had kids and I wanted them to behave, I'd just tell them stories about the RIAA coming to get them and financially ruin them.

Don't jaywalk kids because the RIAA will come get you.Eat your vegetables so you can be strong to fight the riaa.

Vevo is a music video and entertainment website. It is owned by Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Abu Dhabi Media Company.[1] The service was launched officially on 8 December 2009.[2] The video hosting for Vevo is provided by YouTube, with Google and Vevo sharing the advertising revenue.[3] Vevo offers music videos from three of the four major record labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI.[4]

One of the reasons cited for the launch of Vevo is the competition that music videos have on YouTube. Warner Music Group apparently removed its content from YouTube in March 2009 for this reason, but is said to be considering hosting its content on Vevo.[5]

"This video contains content from Vevo, who has decided to block it in your country.".
FYI, I live in a pinko commie 3rd world country called "Denmark":P
Gotta love the "rights protecton" - whose rights..?

I assume that your link is to this song [youtube.com], "Don't download this song" by Weird Al.. The song is quite heavy and very obvious critic against RIAA and it's scare tactics of destroying lives because of a few downloaded songs and about how they have the whole legal system (lawyers, judges the police) under their control. The irony of not being able to legally watch the video outside USA is overwhelming.

That is very common, however. For example many TV shows can't be watched online from Europe anymore. Southpark a

why would you have an increased stress level due to the RIAA? Only people who are violating copyright on music would need to worry about that. If you've violated copyright then the stress is induced by you - so sue yourself. If you haven't violated copyright than any stress you are feeling due to the RIAA is a symptom of insanity.

Right. Because the RIAA never goes after people who haven't pirated. They don't send nasty letters to printers or 7-year-old girls.

The stress of living in a police state (and that's what RIAA has proclaimed themselves to be, not in word but in deed) is not whether you did something wrong or not, it's whether you're accused (and thus nearly automatically convicted) of doing something wrong, regardless of whether you actually did it or not.

When you're 5: "Sharing is a nice thing to do, kids. Don't be selfish! Hoarding your stuff makes you look like a huge jerk."

When you're 25: "Sharing is an evil thing to do, citizen. It's not selfish! Letting other people use your stuff is illegal because it means I make less money. Pay no attention to the fact that my salary is an order of magnitude higher than yours!"

If I ever manage to have kids, I want to raise them to believe that sharing is evil. I will then note other people's reactions to the idea. If people are generally shocked and appalled that people could actually believe this, then I will use that as an argument to show why this BS that the RIAA believes in must be outlawed.

Whether or not you are buying a license to listen to music or not is variously debateable depending on how you procured it. For instance if you go to any music store and purchase a CD album no where does it state that you are agree'ing to a license.

Copyright is necessary in some ways to advance our culture and society, but the current state of copyright law is completely out of line with it's orignal intent.

Whether or not you are buying a license to listen to music or not is variously debateable depending on how you procured it. For instance if you go to any music store and purchase a CD album no where does it state that you are agree'ing to a license.

Contracts exist to represent agreements that are different from the law of the land.

If you wish to opt out of the default law, the onus is on you to either change them or change your nationality. Until you do, you're expected to comply without the need for explicit, shrink-wrapped reminders. (Though notably, you DO tend to get those anyway.)

Copyright is necessary in some ways to advance our culture and society, but the current state of copyright law is completely out of line with it's orignal intent.

I agree completely. So your choices and duties are clear: Comply, change the law, or leave.

I do, conveniently, recognize whining about it on an online forum as an ad

When you "buy" music you are buying a license to use that music in a limited fashion.

Really? I don't remember signing any license agreements when I purchased my last CD. I don't recall signing any license agreements before entering the local venue for a show. I also don't recall signing any license agreements when I e-mailed my favorite bands and asked for a burned copy of their singles that I couldn't find on albums.

In fact, I would assert that I don't license a damn thing when I access music. I purchase it. I purchase the physical media. I purchase the song. I purchase the album artwo

Well, there is a difference between "share your toys" wherein the act of sharing does not create an exact duplicate of the toys and "share your digital music" where the act of sharing does create an exact digital duplicate.

It's physics that keeps people from cloning plastic toys. If they could, they would, ignoring the Plastic Toy Association of America just like they do the RIAA.

Digital media just happens to be the first thing that came along that makes copying really, REALLY easy.

I buy an album full of music, the album belongs to me, I bought it (at least I never signed or agreed a license), so I can share it? I bought a DRM free mp3, I own it (at least I never signed or agreed a license), so I can share it? I bought a book, or ebook, the book or ebook belongs to me (at least I never signed or agreed a license), can I share it?

i think the point is that 1) all the record companies set the same price and 2) they all raised their prices together. these two facts seem to demonstrate collusion in the market. that being the case or not is up to the courts.

Is there any means for artists to claim the companies colluded on contracts, royalties, etc.? I don't know any information there so it may be they were competitive enough to avoid any claims being able to stick, but knowing how bad it is for the artist I'm more concerned about fixing that before we make things better for the consumer.

Actually, no. The appeal decision makes it clear that setting a price and everyone raising it at the same time isn't the issue so much as there being no good reason for raising the price.

If a major resource for an industry goes up in price (i.e. oil) then it's perfectly normal that the entire industry is going to adjust prices to compensate, probably at around the same time, and just knowing that everyone else is going to do it doesn't make it collusion. But in this case, it's been clearly pointed out that

Because with monopoly pricing, the price isn't set in relation to the cost to produce but in relation to the consumers disposable income. You don't lower prices unless the cost of lost sales exceed the revenue lost by lower per-unit price (and sometimes not even then; costs seem to be notoriously difficult for companies to get rid of, basically only competitors undercutting them seem to get it done).

So until copyright is replaced with a system working as a competitive market, you're simply not going to see

The price outside of a monopoly isn't set in relation to the cost to produce. It's a relation of the cost to produce vs. demand at a given cost and production level.
Though I agree that there should be saner copyright laws in place.

The only reason it cost so much in 1980 is that the studios were owned and staffed by the record companies resulting in ridiculously inflated prices to take advantage of naive musicians. Doing it yourself has never cost the fortune they charge, it's just pointless trying to compete on their turf.

Even if that factor remained constant, the savings in distribution are more significant -- No factory, wages or raw materials for duplication, no packaging, no shipping costs, no returns. And they still get to deduct from the artists' royalties for returns and packaging, as far as I know.

And it's not so much what any label did, it's that they got together to create all of the "joint ventures" which not only allow them to collude, but make it comple

Until competition for customers pushes the price down. Ideally, for a customer A seeking service, multiple providers P1, P2, and P3 compete over providing a better service at a better price. In the case of publishing contracts, A is the artist and P1, P2, and P3 are labels, who compete over providing production, distribution, and promotion to recording artists at a better royalty rate. So why doesn't this competition happen in practice?

I don't support the RIAA, but I also don't support anti-RIAA propaganda that I don't understand. The summary was not as clear about why this trial represents the evil motives of the RIAA. I simply asked for clarification of this fact from somebody who might be more knowledgeable.

It's not the price, it's the collusion. The labels are supposed to be in competition with each other. Slashdot has repeatedly recognized that the business of a business is to make money - by whatever means possible. Without collusion and general agreement in the backrooms and lounges, one or more labels might actually become convinced that giving away lots and lots of music is the true route to fortune. Baen Books has learned that lesson - especially with older books. They release an out of print book, FOR FREE, and people not only start asking for that book, but they purchase even more books by the same author, and/or in the same genre.

In the case of the labels represented by RIAA, everyone is part of the Good Old Boy's club, everyone is in lockstep, with the same program, same menu, same tactics. They have a happy status quo, and no one is about to rock the boat with anything so barbaric as COMPETITION!!

It is also collusion that lets stuff like DRM live on. I think the comment about eMusic in the summary is telling. If the record labels had in reality been competing with each other, DRM would be history by now. It would just take one label to start selling music as mp3s, and customers would flock to them.

Very good point - one I probably should have made. Second to price in importance is CONVENIENCE. Ask any customer. We tech literate bemoan the fact that computer users in general don't want to think about ANYTHING - they expect the computer to read their minds, then lead them by the hands.

DRM is an inconvenience at some point to EVERYONE! Many posts have been made in the gaming section of slashdot, pointing out that even honest players who wish to obey the rules find games unplayable, so they download t

The summary was entirely factual, and didn't contain any "anti-RIAA propaganda". Your quote was for a reader comment, not from the original summary.

Read the Starr vs Sony decision linked in the summary and you'll discover that the appeals judges found the evidence is strong that RIAA members have been colluding using illegal (under antitrust law) methods such as price fixing [wikipedia.org]. E.g., they ask why RIAA members raised the wholesale price from $0.65/song to $0.70/song while the second largest distributor of music, eMusic, was wholesaling at $0.25/song. In the stereotypical "normal free market", competition as well as decreased production costs would lead to lower prices.

The summary was entirely factual, and didn't contain any "anti-RIAA propaganda". Your quote was for a reader comment, not from the original summary.
Read the Starr vs Sony decision linked in the summary and you'll discover that the appeals judges found the evidence is strong that RIAA members have been colluding using illegal (under antitrust law) methods such as price fixing [wikipedia.org]. E.g., they ask why RIAA members raised the wholesale price from $0.65/song to $0.70/song while the second largest distributor of music, eMusic, was wholesaling at $0.25/song. In the stereotypical "normal free market", competition as well as decreased production costs would lead to lower prices.

This is why we should care. I know that it's clichéd, but these companies care nothing about you, or about music, or about the well-being of the world in which they operate. They are wholly evil, in a way that almost no other business is.

I remember when I worked with a guy with good connections to all (then five) big music companies (who did all the deals for us, because he was an insider). He usually was on the phone with these big music managers, loudly joking, and setting up meetings of talking about deals.

In the industry, it’s all about connections. A small group of people who know each other.

And this was, how he once described the typical “business meeting” to me: (I think in this example it was the EMI boss.)He took the elevator to the top floor. The guy greeted him and offered him lines of coke as thick as your finger, on a mirror.Then he ordered some hookers. And then it was time for business.According to him, that was rather normal, and in no way an exception.

I think your company isn't one that's overly chummy with the government. The RIAA is already buying politicians and writing copyright legislation. If they're already doing that, I don't think they have to worry too much about the law coming down on them for something as minor as whores and blow. You're really underestimating the industry if you don't think that this goes on behind closed doors. After all, this is the same industry that would buy drugs for the big-name bands that were working on new albums.

I wasn't aware of the Courtney Love letter. That was an amazing read (many thanks). That begs the second question. Why haven't I heard of this letter before? The RIAA is an evil beyond typical corporate scams and money making. They have fingers in world wide political pies, and money to literally burn. The fact that a single group can exert so much power in political circles should be a huge wake up call to everyone, yet year by year goes by and only the 'geeks' and those affected voice their concerns. I th

Why are banks allowed to keep you in debt for the rest of your life? The answer to both questions are almost the same, US citizens all suffer from some form of memory loss, that or the like to be lubed up and penetrated. You could argue, banks and RIAA both only serve to entrap people and take control of their lives financially, yet it would fall upon deaf ears.

Considering you can easily pay off a card if you simply pay more than the minimum, or pay early, it's not nearly the same situation. These folks are legally bound to produce for the recording industry, and everything they produce that's worth anything is owned forever by the same industry.

There's more than enough evidence that is public to make a decision. If I see someone slit the throat of someone else, I'm not going to wait until he is proven to be a murderer in a court of law to call him that.

You mean you hope there's action taken if they are proven to be true, right?

Due process applies to everyone, not just the people we like.

Wait, when did our hopes have to include due process? Does this mean I can no longer hope that certain American citizens who annoy me on a daily basis get tortured for all eternity by the devil himself? Can I still hope it if I also hope they go through a sham trial in some south american junta first and are convicted on grounds of "being fucking annoying?"

It occurs to me that all it takes to break up a 'cartel' like this is one or two successful publishers who are not owned or controlled in any way by the existing publishers, and that such independent publishers are willing to really compete with the other labels to sign talent and publish music. The question is, are there any independent labels right now? I remember seeing a chart sometime ago which showed how a lot of 'independent labels' are really owned by the big music publishers, who just use those oth

This is why we should care. I know that it's clichéd, but these companies care nothing about you, or about music, or about the well-being of the world in which they operate. They are wholly evil, in a way that almost no other business is.

What other companies _actually_ care about the consumer, the product they sell, or the world in which they operate? Modern society boils all of business down to a search for short-term profit. Consumers only matter because they have wallets, products only matter because they need to open the consumer's wallets somehow, and the world at large only matters when it begins being bad for business.

I don't have the slightest doubt that the allegations are true, and can easily be proven. If I were a betting man, I'd be betting..... settlement.

The question of if the RIAA loses and if they make a settlement and on how favorable of terms probably has less to do with their guilt and the law than it has to do with who is running the show. The justice department is loaded with ex-employees of RIAA at the highest levels. Maybe that means they will know how to deal with these guys or maybe it means their buddies will get off with a slap on the wrist. Much of that may depend upon if Obama keeps his promises about not letting industry insiders provide favoritism to their friends from within his administration.

I don't have the slightest doubt that the allegations are true, and can easily be proven. If I were a betting man, I'd be betting..... settlement.

The question of if the RIAA loses and if they make a settlement and on how favorable of terms probably has less to do with their guilt and the law than it has to do with who is running the show. The justice department is loaded with ex-employees of RIAA at the highest levels.

This is a private class action; it has nothing to do with the justice department. It would have to do with what the lawyers work out, whether class members object, and whether the judge approves of the deal.

No-one in Ethopia is starving because of the RIAA cartel overpricing the latest fucking Jonah Bros CD.

Yawn. The old "if it ain't as bad as the worst evil I can think of, you're just whining about it" argument. It remains invalid.

Sure, these guys aren't murderers, most of them. They're still thieves on a massive scale (mostly from the "talent" they claim to be protecting). They're still willing to sue people into bankruptcy for bucking them. They'd still like to put people in jail for writing computer programs they don't like. They'd still like to ban entire classes of technology to maintain their profits. They're still evil, even if Idi Amin makes them look like pikers.

Better than thieves, I'd compare them to child extortionists. They seduce young musicians with dreams of fame and money, make promises they'll never keep, then they bleed them dry of their efforts then cast them away when they are too frail too lift a finger. All the while, these people are kept illusioned that it is all to their benefit so that they never have the opportunity to learn a lesson from the experience.

No-one in Ethopia is starving because of the RIAA cartel overpricing the latest fucking Jonah Bros CD. Villagers haven't been raped and murdered for being in the way of a new CD pressing plant in Nigeria. And 20,000 people per year aren't dying from lung cancer because they got hooked on Eminem.

I'm only saying this for argument's sake, but:

What if songs only cost what they really were worth, and the money that goes to support the RIAA were still in the pockets of the consumers and the artists instead? What, then, if more of them donated time and money to humanitarian aid, sane foreign policy, and smoking cessation campaigns?

There's a thin possibility that, by stopping this one evil that we do know and care about, people and resources could be reallocated in ways that do wind up impacting the grea

She says that she would be the first person to file a lawsuit against Napster for infringing her Copyright, then she says that illegal distribution is helping her sell more albums... huh?

First and foremost, I think Ms Love is a tool. So I'm not defending her. However...

If you've never found yourself enforcing a rule or restriction even though it will also do you harm, you soon will.

I still remember the day I wrote the web proxy rule that cut me off from several websites I enjoy. It 'harmed' me, but rules are rules and some things happen for a good reason even when they don't have an immediate personal benefit.

In the musician's case, 'free music' is an end-game proposition. It only helps

I'd mod up parent post if I had the points. It's great seeing a case like this take one small step forward, but unfortunately it's a bit like skipping through a minefield where the mines are politicians and public officials whose pockets are lined with MAFIAA money and the minefield ends miles away. I don't think we're gonna make it.

Speaking as someone who's very close to the RiAA this is what I have to say:

You people have no chance! We own the Congress, we have more lawyers and eventually, NYCL WILL come over to the Darkside - it's only a matter of time.

You little thieves just need to stop stealing our music!

We now have factories in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Africa that produce music - all run by small children that are paid with barely enough food to live. We just hire good looking people to lip synch in videos and "live" shows. And then when they can't work anymore, we sell the little girls into prostitution and the boys are then trained to be our stormtroopers.

So just shut up! I have to go. My stupid idiotic maid made my afternoon cocktail with the blood of kittens when I especially ordered her to make it with the blood of puppies!

Your labels also own music publishers, the companies that own copyright in the music and lyrics apart from the recording. If you provide us indie songwriters with an automated way to check any song we've written against these music publishers' catalogs to make sure we didn't screw up like George Harrison ("My Sweet Lord") or Michael Bolton ("Love Is a Wonderful Thing"), we might take you up on this offer.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention NYC, but if you'll excuse the pun, we've heard this tune before. Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items) while valuing them, for the purposes of the settlement, at "full retail" (even though almost none of them actually sell at that price in the real world). What will prevent them from offering an equally "useless" settlement payment, as they have been allowed to do in the past, again this time?

Suppose that the RIAA loses and is ordered to pay restitution, but instead of cash the court allows the RIAA and its members to "pay" by donating a selection of CDs or downloads of their choice (i.e. their choice of the worst selling items)

Don't bet on it. They can only get away with that shit once. It isn't the court that decided that last time, it was a negotiated settlement between the various state DAs offices and the RIAA. The DAs just didn't realize what sharks they were dealing with. I know this because an ex of mine was a junior DA from one of the smaller states on that case and she even got herself quoted in their local paper saying something to the effect of, "I'm sure the senior DAs from around the country will not allow the RIAA to wiggle out of this settlement." Its about 10 years later and that newspaper interview is still one of the funniest things I have to give her shit about.

that is the fact that the canadian arm of the R.I.A.A. up here called the CRIA hasnt paid 300,000 artists since 1980.

BOY oh boy thats a bomb to say in court eh?if they are commercially pirating up in canada , are they doing it in the USA and other countries and does that mean that record breaking profit year really mean profit to the riaa OR is it fraudulently stolen monies.